This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/25/force-feeding-guantanamo-detainees-unethical

The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Force-feeding Guantánamo detainees is unethical and inhumane Force-feeding Guantánamo detainees is unethical and inhumane
(3 months later)
How has force-feeding been allowed to resurface in the prison camps of Guantánamo Bay? In the post 9/11 world, it seems that basic medical ethics can be discarded and past prison controversies forgotten so long as the objectives of the so-called war on terror are achieved. And where are the critics? Feminists rightly remind us of the prison experiences of suffragette hunger strikers a century ago; an opera based on the life of suffragette Emily Davison launching next month devotes an entire act to Davison's experiences of force-feeding. Nonetheless, feminists remain curiously silent on present-day force-feeding in Guantánamo. Little has been said in Northern Ireland, either, despite the discussion of Margaret Thatcher's treatment of hunger strikers that accompanied her recent death.How has force-feeding been allowed to resurface in the prison camps of Guantánamo Bay? In the post 9/11 world, it seems that basic medical ethics can be discarded and past prison controversies forgotten so long as the objectives of the so-called war on terror are achieved. And where are the critics? Feminists rightly remind us of the prison experiences of suffragette hunger strikers a century ago; an opera based on the life of suffragette Emily Davison launching next month devotes an entire act to Davison's experiences of force-feeding. Nonetheless, feminists remain curiously silent on present-day force-feeding in Guantánamo. Little has been said in Northern Ireland, either, despite the discussion of Margaret Thatcher's treatment of hunger strikers that accompanied her recent death.
Force-feeding is not a new concern. It fell rapidly out of fashion in 1917 after Irish republican Thomas Ashe unexpectedly died after being fed, and again in the 1970s following IRA hunger striker Michael Gaughan's controversial death. Then, as now, medical professionals and human rights activists raised concern about the dubious use of the stomach tube to suppress hunger strikers. The World Medical Organisation's 1975 condemnation of force-feeding as torturous and degrading seemed to signal an end to the practice. Indeed, one of the key reasons why Thatcher was left with few options but to allow IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands and his fellow prisoners to starve – in the face of politically damaging controversy – was because she knew that force-feeding was no longer ethically viable.Force-feeding is not a new concern. It fell rapidly out of fashion in 1917 after Irish republican Thomas Ashe unexpectedly died after being fed, and again in the 1970s following IRA hunger striker Michael Gaughan's controversial death. Then, as now, medical professionals and human rights activists raised concern about the dubious use of the stomach tube to suppress hunger strikers. The World Medical Organisation's 1975 condemnation of force-feeding as torturous and degrading seemed to signal an end to the practice. Indeed, one of the key reasons why Thatcher was left with few options but to allow IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands and his fellow prisoners to starve – in the face of politically damaging controversy – was because she knew that force-feeding was no longer ethically viable.
Crime needs to be punished but force-feeding policies have never succeeded. Prison hunger strikes occur decades apart. When they do reappear, the complex ethical questions which were raised when force-feeding took place in the past have been mostly forgotten. This is a shame. Listening to historical experiences could inform current debate on prisoner welfare at Guantánamo. For instance, by suggesting that Guantánamo prisoners are irrational and approaching death, "artificial feeding" is justified. Winston Churchill similarly claimed that force-feeding protected hysterical suffragettes from death. In fact, the mere three or four days which they spent without food before being fed hardly posed much of a threat to their life.Crime needs to be punished but force-feeding policies have never succeeded. Prison hunger strikes occur decades apart. When they do reappear, the complex ethical questions which were raised when force-feeding took place in the past have been mostly forgotten. This is a shame. Listening to historical experiences could inform current debate on prisoner welfare at Guantánamo. For instance, by suggesting that Guantánamo prisoners are irrational and approaching death, "artificial feeding" is justified. Winston Churchill similarly claimed that force-feeding protected hysterical suffragettes from death. In fact, the mere three or four days which they spent without food before being fed hardly posed much of a threat to their life.
Past experiences also help us to interpret prisoner accounts. When the Algerian detainee Ahmed Belbacha's gave his testimony to the BBC recently, he recalled that force-feeding "hurts a great deal" and produces intense vomiting. Prisoners' accounts are far from unbiased. Nonetheless, suffragettes' accounts also talk about the relentless vomiting and discomfort of their feeding experiences; the psychological fear of the stomach tube expressed by the Irish republican Austin Stack – scrawled in pencil on a piece of toilet paper and smuggled out of Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, in 1917 – also reinforces the Guantánamo accounts, as does the very real incident of Gaughan's death as the food which he was fed accidentally clogged up his lungs.Past experiences also help us to interpret prisoner accounts. When the Algerian detainee Ahmed Belbacha's gave his testimony to the BBC recently, he recalled that force-feeding "hurts a great deal" and produces intense vomiting. Prisoners' accounts are far from unbiased. Nonetheless, suffragettes' accounts also talk about the relentless vomiting and discomfort of their feeding experiences; the psychological fear of the stomach tube expressed by the Irish republican Austin Stack – scrawled in pencil on a piece of toilet paper and smuggled out of Mountjoy Prison, Dublin, in 1917 – also reinforces the Guantánamo accounts, as does the very real incident of Gaughan's death as the food which he was fed accidentally clogged up his lungs.
A key issue always at stake in these controversies is the pertinent question of whether detained prisoners have the right to refuse painful medical treatment if they wish. Certainly, if we discard the basic human and bio-ethical right of being able to refuse medical intervention then western society is in danger of descending into the types of social order that the war on terror purports to be protecting us from. On this basis, medical institutions including the World Medical Association and the Lancet have rightly protested – just as they did in the past, when force-fed suffragists developed acute paranoia, hallucinations and mental distress, and when prison doctors even applied the procedure on an epileptic, wheelchair-bound suffragist.A key issue always at stake in these controversies is the pertinent question of whether detained prisoners have the right to refuse painful medical treatment if they wish. Certainly, if we discard the basic human and bio-ethical right of being able to refuse medical intervention then western society is in danger of descending into the types of social order that the war on terror purports to be protecting us from. On this basis, medical institutions including the World Medical Association and the Lancet have rightly protested – just as they did in the past, when force-fed suffragists developed acute paranoia, hallucinations and mental distress, and when prison doctors even applied the procedure on an epileptic, wheelchair-bound suffragist.
Medical ethicists have also rightly drawn attention to the complicated role of the prison medical staff in all of this. Robert Durand, the spokesman for the detention centre, stated last week that Guantánamo's medical staff are in no way troubled by their work and have not opposed force-feeding. Of course they haven't. They are required to follow the orders of military commanders and would lose their jobs if they spoke out against being told to perform unsavoury tasks. The reality of their work is always complex. Most prison doctors who challenged force-feeding policies in the past were forced to resign. In the 1970s, one West German doctor chose to take his own life rather than continue force-feeding. As the Lancet pointed out last week, independent medical examination is urgently needed if the integrity of our ethical principles is to be preserved.Medical ethicists have also rightly drawn attention to the complicated role of the prison medical staff in all of this. Robert Durand, the spokesman for the detention centre, stated last week that Guantánamo's medical staff are in no way troubled by their work and have not opposed force-feeding. Of course they haven't. They are required to follow the orders of military commanders and would lose their jobs if they spoke out against being told to perform unsavoury tasks. The reality of their work is always complex. Most prison doctors who challenged force-feeding policies in the past were forced to resign. In the 1970s, one West German doctor chose to take his own life rather than continue force-feeding. As the Lancet pointed out last week, independent medical examination is urgently needed if the integrity of our ethical principles is to be preserved.
Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.